The Putney Swope Factor.

Years ago, there was a cult movie called Putney Swope.

It was about an advertising agency with a very competitive board of directors that loses its president in the middle of a board meeting. In the rush to appoint someone who would offer the least threat, the board members vote for what they assume to be the least qualified candidate, Putney Swope, the shuffling mail boy.

And, hence, Putney becomes president. At the beginning, Putney is a docile Step n’ Fetchet type who goes along with the crowd. After he becomes president, he goes through a mega shift. In the first scene after the election, the office is packed with other minorities, jangling chains and walking the walk.

While the idea is funny and immediately appears to be insulting to minorities, the concept is broad enough to be inclusive of anyone who has differences either of race, gender, geographical orientation, religion, mind-set, etc. It could apply to a cowboy, a Mormon, a southerner—especially a Southern Baptist, a woman or a black candidate. How do they think? Will they bring their differences to the table? And their jobs?
Admittedly, this sounds as biased as hell but just look at what happened with the election of George Bush. None of the talented, qualified people who were available and would have elevated each important appointment was replaced by sinecures, totally unqualified for their assignments but hired only for their loyalty to a la Bush, maverick, cowboy and government hater.

We should not only know as much as possible about the candidates but what their intentions are for good governance or self-adulation and fulfillment? Whether the appointments they make will enhance the public good or legitimize special interests.. We need to get into their heads and decide how their thinking as it pertains to vital appointments will influence their tenure.

I think this would go a long way in resolving the doubts that many of us voters have about the candidates.

Are they likely to bring in their own sinecures, inexperienced people unqualified to hold down their jobs. Will Giuliani if he wins bring back Bernie Keric? Will Edwards appoint a bunch of good ole’ Southern boys from Carolina? Will Tom Tancredo gather around himself a bunch of Islam-haters? Will Hunter embrace other Immigrant haters as part of his one note campaign turned into a presidency?

In this context, I cannot help but think of Carter’s first appointments which showed that he was no Kennedy. He appointed Burt Lance and the rest of his Southern Presidential team instead of the “best and the brightest” as Kennedy did where he demonstrated virtually immediately that he was not threatened by strong candidates in each critical appointment. That took courage! Will our new appointee show equivalent courage?
Questions that may help us decide who is best qualified to run this country.

These are serious issues to think about and have not been given enough attention by voters in trying to assess the candidates and their qualifications. It seems to me quite natural to ask who do the candidates look up to, what are the nature of their best appointments to high level, critical jobs. We don’t want another Brown handling FEMA.
We don’t want another Interior Secretary who says its okay to grant licenses to foreigners to despoil the west to satisfy the Exxons of the world.. We don’t want another FDA chair who fails to recognize his obligation to keeping foods and toys from entering this country that are not safe or reliable. And on and on.

I have always wondered why the descriptive terminology “Putney Swope” had not entered the lexicon and perhaps this is the time to revive it.

Les Aaron
The Armchair Curmudgeon
Hubmaster@aol.com